expression and personal liberty of the individuals

Union of India’ this provision which criminalised online speech was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Jan. PUCL was represented by Sanjay Parikh Adv and assisted by a legal team. Finding merit at the threshold in the application, the Supreme Court today, In 2013, PUCL had filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. 7, 2019 issued notice and directed the Union Govement to respond within weeks.

Conceed by this continuing abuse of an unconstitutional and non-existent criminal provision, PUCL filed an application in which prayers were sought to ensure that the abuse must stop, existing cases of Section 66A cease and fresh ones are not registered..Unfortunately, despite the Court&China DRY-WET Motors Suppliers8217;s judgement of March, 2015 striking down sec.

A core problem with the provision, as noticed by the Supreme Court, was its vagueness which was leading to arbitrary and indiscriminate arrests. By a landmark judgement in `Shreya Singhal v. 66A of the IT Act as void and unconstitutional, a study of legal databases by the Inteet Freedom Foundation (IFF) found that Section 66A cases were continuing and fresh criminal cases were being registered.

PUCL is committed to protection of freedom of speech and expression and civil liberties and will continue to follow this matter and other related issues. This violated not only the Supreme Court judgement but the fundamental right to freedom of # speech and expression and personal liberty of the individuals. This step of PUCL will be helpful in several other areas where in spite of declaration of law by Supreme Court, it is not followed, which results in breach of fundamental rights of the people